Schneider v. Sellers

• Decision Date: 16 January 1905
• Citation: 84 S.W. 417
• Parties: SCHNEIDER et al. v. SELLERS et al.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

Page 417

84 S.W. 417

SCHNEIDER et al. v. SELLERS et al.

Supreme Court of Texas.

January 16, 1905.

Error to Court of Civil Appeals of Fifth Supreme Judicial District.

Action by Leonard Sellers and others against Jules Schneider and others. Judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals (81 S. W. 126) affirming a judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants bring error. Modified.

Wm. P. Ellison, Chas. Fred Tucker, and Templeton & Harding, for plaintiffs in error. F. L. Snodgrass and H. T. Sims, for defendants in error.

BROWN, J.

This suit was begun by the defendants in error in the district court of Ellis county on the 28th of August, 1896, against Jules Schneider, Alfred Davis, and the Schneider-Davis Company, a corporation created under the laws of this state. The case was tried on the fourth amended petition of the plaintiffs. The object of the suit was to set aside two judgments rendered in the district court of Ellis county; the first being styled, "Wade House against W. C. and S. E. Walker," in which the community property of Teoli Sellers and S. E. Walker was partitioned between the plaintiffs therein, Leonard Sellers, Obani Sellers, and Frederick Sellers, the children of the said Teoli Sellers and S. E. Walker. Judgment was entered in that case on the 16th of June, 1883, and the lands in controversy in this suit were treated in that case as the community property of the said Teoli Sellers and S. E. Walker, who was his surviving widow, and had subsequently married W. C. Walker. In that suit the homestead was set apart to S. E. Walker, and subsequently another suit was instituted by Bascom McDaniel, as guardian of the said Leonard, Obani, and Frederick Sellers, to partition and divide the said homestead, on the ground that its use had been abandoned as such by their mother, and judgment was rendered by agreement in that case dividing the lands equally between the plaintiffs and Mrs. S. E. Walker. It was alleged in the petition that the property was in fact the separate property of Teoli Sellers, and that the judgments were procured by concealment of the truth, and by inducing the court to enter judgment equally dividing the property between the children and the surviving wife of Sellers—the said children being then minors, and not of age sufficient to protect themselves in their rights—wherefore it was sought to set aside the said judgments; and, in addition thereto, the plaintiffs set up and claimed that they were owners of the lands now in controversy as the heirs of the said Teoli Sellers, and also by virtue of a deed executed by S. E. Walker and her husband, W. C. Walker, conveying all of their interest in the lands to the plaintiffs in this suit, which deed was dated the 27th of March, 1896. The said petition further alleged that on the 20th day of September, 1886, S. E. Walker and W. C. Walker executed and delivered to one Greenlaw, as trustee for the benefit of Jules Schneider and Alfred Davis—a firm acting under the name of Schneider & Davis—a deed of trust upon the said land to secure a note for $2,831.25 made and executed by the said W. C. Walker to the said Schneider & Davis, of which $1,831.25 was a pre-existing debt due from Walker to Schneider & Davis, and $1,000 of the said amount was, by agreement, to be furnished to the said W. C. Walker with which to buy a certain stock of cattle, with the understanding that, if the said cattle were not bought by the said Walker, the deed of trust should be returned and canceled. It was also alleged that the said deed of trust embraced a stock of cattle and other personal property of value more than sufficient to pay the whole of the note secured by the deed of trust, which personal property was the community property of W. C. Walker and S. E. Walker, and the debt secured by the deed of trust was the community debt of the said W. C. and S. E. Walker. It was alleged that subsequently to the making of the deed of trust the cattle were not purchased as was agreed upon, and that the $1,000 was not furnished to Walker in accordance with the terms of the agreement. It was further alleged that Schneider & Davis, with the intent to release the cattle embraced in the said deed of trust from the lien thereof, purchased the said cattle from W. C. Walker for $1,000, and at the same time sold the same back to the said W. C. Walker for $1,000, taking his note and a deed of trust thereon to secure the payment of it, whereby the lien of said deed of trust upon the land was released, because the said land was security only for the debt, Mrs. Walker not being legally bound for the payment of it. It was alleged that Schneider & Davis caused the land to be sold under the deed of trust, and purchased it at the sale, and subsequently conveyed it to the corporation, the Schneider-Davis Company. The petition charged that neither Schneider & Davis nor the Schneider-Davis Company were innocent purchasers of the land. It prayed for the recovery of the land and rents thereon, and, in case it should be held that the Schneider-Davis Company was an innocent purchaser, so that the plaintiffs could not recover the land from it, then the plaintiffs asked for a recovery against Schneider & Davis of the value of the land at the time that they sold it. The petition is very long, with elaborate allegations, but we believe that this is a substantial statement of all necessary for the determination of the questions presented in this case.

The defendants in error answered by a general demurrer and by 32 special exceptions, also by a plea of not guilty, and pleaded the statutes of limitation of two, three, and four years. Defendants each pleaded that they were innocent purchasers, in good faith, for a valuable consideration; that they had made valuable improvements upon the lands (stating the amount); and prayed that, in case they should lose the land, they be allowed the value of the improvements. The defendants Schneider & Davis also pleaded that they had, at the instance of W. C. Walker, paid off and discharged an incumbrance upon the lands in controversy which was held by the guardian of the minors (describing the debt so discharged), and they asked that, in case the plaintiffs recovered the land from them, they might be subrogated to the rights of the holder of that incumbrance, and that the same be enforced in their favor.

In reply to the defendants' pleadings, the plaintiffs pleaded, among other things, that Mrs. S. E. Walker was a married woman when the transactions occurred, and had so continued from the time the deed of trust was made up to the time of the institution of the suit, and that each of the plaintiffs was a minor until shortly before the institution of the suit; that is, that Leonard Sellers became of age December 16, 1895; that Obani Sellers arrived at majority on the 11th day of October, 1897; and that Frederick Sellers became 21 years old on the 14th day of July, 1899.

From the statement of facts as given by the Court of Civil Appeals, the special verdict returned by the jury, and the undisputed evidence, we make the following statement of the facts necessary to a decision of the questions presented to this court: Teoli Sellers and S. E. Sellers (defendant in this suit under the name of S. E. Walker) were husband and wife, and during their marriage the land in controversy was purchased by Teoli Sellers, and paid for with his separate funds, but there is no recitation in the deed to show that fact. During their marriage, Sellers and his wife had born to them three children. Leonard was born December 16, 1874; Obani was born on the 11th day of October, 1876; and Frederick was born on the 14th day of July, 1878. Teoli Sellers died on the 11th day of October, 1881, leaving surviving him his wife and three children above named. Afterwards Mrs. Sellers intermarried with W. C. Walker. On June 16, 1883, Wade A. House, acting as the next friend and as prospective guardian of the three minors, Leonard, Obani, and Frederick Sellers, filed in the district court of Ellis county a petition against S. E. Walker and W. C. Walker for partition of the estate of Teoli Sellers and his wife, which consisted in part of separate property of the said deceased husband, and in part of community property of Mrs. Walker and her deceased husband. The defendants appeared and answered, and on the 28th day of September, 1883, a judgment was entered by agreement partitioning between the said children and Mrs. S. E. Walker all of the property except the homestead and an adjoining tract, which were set aside to her, as the surviving wife, for her use. The commissioners' report of partition was made and acted upon by the district court in 1884. On February 2, 1887, Bascom McDaniel, guardian of the minors, Leonard, Obani, and Frederick Sellers, filed a petition in the district court of Ellis county against S. E. and W. C. Walker, alleging that Mrs. Walker had abandoned the land described in the petition as a homestead, and praying that the said land might be divided equally between the said minor children and Mrs. S. E. Walker; and on March 11, 1887, an agreed judgment was entered, partitioning the said land equally as prayed for. The lands in controversy were by the two judgments adjudged to Mrs. S. E. Walker as being community property of herself and Teoli Sellers, but the land was in fact the separate property of said Teoli Sellers. Upon a special issue submitted by the court, the jury found that the two judgments were procured by false representations and concealment of the true facts by S. E. Walker and W. C. Walker, but that Schneider & Davis or the Schneider-Davis Company did not know of the misrepresentations of fraud in the procurement of the judgment at the time that they acquired their several rights in the property. On September 20, 1886. W. C. Walker was indebted to Schneider & Davis in the sum of $1,831.26, and borrowed $1,000 from them, giving his note to Schneider & Davis for $2,831.26, to...